.jpg)
Posted on 09/01/2003 4:24:17 AM PDT by csvset
I agree with the part about people "blasting" him off-hand. But his opinion isn't any better than many others who would disagree with him who are of equal experience and qualification. You'll never see me blasting anyone for an honest opinion and I'll take Webb's thoughts in mind with those of the others. I agree he is a good man, but that does not make him automatically correct.
Then why did the Reagan staffers do everything in secret?
Trying to avoid a major and potentially crippling constitutional crisis which is what the Boland Amendment, just like the '74 War Powers Act promises if the s**t ever hits the fan."
Face reality Walt. We are not in an age, nor have we been for the last 50 years, where diplomacy can be conducted 100% under public scrutiny with all the give and take and partisan wrangling. I wish it were otherwise, but it simply isn't. Your cut and dry interp. of original intent isn't so clear on foreign policy. Where does it say that the Executive can't raise money from sources other than taxes? Where does the constitution allow congress to tell the CiC where he can spend military aid dollars? Where does it allow congress to single out a particular country or cause without input from the executive? The SC has never decided these issues.
The only thing Ollie (really Reagan) did was piss of the Ed Asner's of the world who wanted some Commie despot more attractive than their hero Castro to take over Central America. The Ortega brothers were a Hollywood wet dream and they played that part to the hilt and got all the beautiful, empty-heads, turning their way with their un-constitutional Boland amendment. In the end, because of Reagan, the Ortegas are pathetic footnotes to history who couldn't even climb as high as to rate Lenin's ash-heap. More like history's dung-heap. (That really pisses the Ed Assner's off! --- LOL)
By any reading of original intent, the framers left much more latitude to the executive branch than what the Boland amendment allowed. How much latitude is the un-answered question that anyone with a clear head does not want to see answered under current conditions. The danger is that a Supreme Court decision on either Boland or the WPA could well tip the balance too far one way or the other. We are better served with the conflict as long as our policy must remain mostly covert. Seven administrations and every congress, (Rs and Ds) since 74 has bent over backwards to keep the SC from ever having a say on exactly who conducts foreign policy. The implications of such a decision are frightening if it were to go too far in either direction. The status quo, which is ambiguity, is our best option at this time.
Ollie, (and I don't really care for the guy all that much) did what he had to do and was told to do. I doubt he thought it all up, but he was a good Marine, and he executed the plan. And it was a damn good plan. A world-class plan. Saddam did not get the Iranian oil-fields. The Iranians, did not get the Iraqi oil fields. They both beat the hell out of each other. The Ortega thugs did not retain control in Nicaragua and that country now has a functioning, multi-party democracy. Just consider Ollie a sacrifice to the ambuigity of the constitution who allowed us to defer a constitutional crisis while meeting our global commitments. Ollie without doubt, took the hit and did not bitch about it or point fingers. That’s a good Marine in my book.
They tried to, but it didn't work. He got it back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.